I get the feeling that although he had ARPA, he failed to properly use
it. With ARPA there should have been no guess work ....course, speed,
CPA, Rel.motion should have been known.

otn

Something did not work properly with the radar procedures. In the aftermath,
they ran simulations with the ships and an action item that came out of that was
a meeting with the radar manufacturer to find out why it didn't work as it
should have.

Unfortunately, all the reports I found were rather terse - if it had been the
NTSB they would have listed model numbers, etc. The US reports however, are
usually fuzzy on the law until you get up to the appeals level.

One thing I found surprising while perusing the British "prosecution" reports
was the large number of boats prosecuted simply for not traveling properly in
the Dover TSS. One boat's defense was that their electronics failed and they
didn't have a paper backup, so they were also fined for not having a proper
chart.


"otnmbrd" wrote in message
hlink.net...
I get the feeling that although he had ARPA, he failed to properly use
it. With ARPA there should have been no guess work ....course, speed,
CPA, Rel.motion should have been known.

otn

For better or worse. here's the complete report on the Dover Ferry incident.
Note that this is not the court findings, nor do they feel bound be court
precedents, or make any attempt to place blame. The actual prosecution was
much more limited in scope, and only found fault under Rules 5 and 19.

It would be possible to find something in this report to support almost any
position.

On the issue of safe speed:

"Recognising that there is always a possibility that small vessels and other
floating objects might not be detected by radar at an adequate range (Rule
6(b)(iv)), it follows that a speed which relies on radar for detecting vessels
at a
sufficient range so as to be able to avoid collision, in accordance with the
Collision Regulations, should not be regarded as a safe speed.

"However, the practicality of following the above criterion in conditions of
severely restricted visibility is questionable (eg the need to maintain steerage
in
conditions of zero visibility). Additionally, the commercial viability of
shipping
would be in danger of being undermined if the criterion was strictly applied,
particularly in areas prone to restricted visibility.

"In view of the above, a more pragmatic approach might be appropriate, such
that a degree of reliance on radar for detection might be acceptable following a
reasoned assessment of the risks in doing so."

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ety_507877.pdf